| "Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new 'preemptive first strike' doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force." U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, Texas Republican |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
Anina and Paul attended a rally and march to protest the then impending attack on Iraq by the Bush administration. Click on photos for larger versions.  |
 |
||
March 17 2002 A few words from Paul Guinan: As a military-history buff, I believe a large-scale preemptive surprise attack against a foreign nation does a terrible dishonor to the United States armed forces. Yes, I’m familiar with U.S.-backed coups, covert operations, and even the U.S. Marines’ "Banana Wars" of the 1930s. But never in history has the U.S. undertaken such a massive military initiative against another nation without a demonstrable direct and immediate threat to our own country. Such unprovoked military efforts are invariably viewed with terrible scorn in retrospect. Consider these previous "preemptive" surprise attacks against perceived threats to national security: - Germany attacks France, 1914 (World War I). - Japan attacks the U.S., 1941 (World War II). - North Korea attacks South Korea, 1950 (Korean War). - Iraq attacks Kuwait, 1991 (Gulf War). All of the above were "justified" by the attacking nations on the same grounds the U.S. is now using: that the target country posed a vague yet "clear and present danger" to the attacker. Puts us in pretty bad company, doesn’t it? Historically, even some of the U.S. government’s more imperialistic conflicts were at least grounded in what seemed like legitimate reasons: The Spanish-American War was sparked by the mistaken belief that enemy agents had blown up the battleship U.S.S. Maine. Many years later, it was determined that a design flaw had caused an explosion in the ship’s ammunition hold. Likewise, the Vietnam "police action" was significantly expanded after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a supposed naval skirmish between U.S. and North Vietnamese ships that turned out to have been largely manufactured. Even in Vietnam, then, our government had enough sense to come up with justifications that sounded convincing. Striking first without provocation was (and still should be) considered morally indefensible. So, ask yourself this: Why the unprecedented foreign-policy shift? Why invade and occupy, at an exorbitant cost to be paid for many years to come, a country on the other side of the planet, which has not threatened us in any way? On the other hand, there are many reasons not to attack Iraq: - For more than 12 years, no nation has attacked, been attacked by, or made any formal claim to have been threatened by Iraq. In less than a week, we’ve managed to destabilize the entire region. - Other countries have more repressive and dictatorial governments, and much deadlier weapons, than Iraq does--yet the U.S. happily does business with repressive regimes around the world. At least one of those countries (North Korea) has directly, explicitly threatened the United States. I’m not saying that we should attack North Korea, just pointing out the hypocrisy of our government’s focusing its purported "moral outrage" so exclusively on Iraq. - There is no link between the secular Iraqi government and its sworn enemies, the fundamentalist al Queda. Hussein and bin Laden hate each other too much to band together against the U.S. Colin Powell’s presentation at the U.N., largely based on plagiarism, outdated information, and misleading statements, utterly failed to establish such a link or to prove that Iraq is engaged in a serious military build-up. Given the many good reasons not to attack Iraq and the many bad reasons offered for launching the attack, I’m genuinely perplexed as to why our government feels it is so imperative that we commit ourselves to this unjustifiable war. The death toll will be numbing, the economic toll on our own country will be back-breaking, and world antagonism toward the U.S. is increasing tremendously as a result of this one-sided war. All the good will the planet had for our nation post-September 11 has been destroyed with the utmost arrogance. For what? For oil, ego, and profit. That is not what our men and women in uniform should be fighting for; it is an insult to their honor. Bring them home, now! |
|||
| The above was written just before the U.S. attack against Iraq. Since then I have found out some facts that are quite revealing.
 Big Red Hair Home Big Red Hair Site Map |
 |
||
PROOF THAT BUSH DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS   |
|||
